Others might wonder if LNG is losing its luster. If it will ever achieve its potential to become a dominant marine and transportation fuel.

Before we start hanging black crepe, let’s not lose sight of the ample evidence that LNG remains a compelling alternative to meet growing emissions requirements.

Interest in LNG as a marine fuel was initially driven by three factors: Emissions Control Areas (ECAs) in North America and Northern Europe; the rapid growth of natural gas production; and LNG’s potential to significantly reduce all categories of marine air emissions, particularly sulfur oxide. LNG was predicted to displace a significant portion of the marine fuel market by the end of the decade with forecasts of 30 percent market penetration by 2030. This development then likely would spur broader adoption of LNG and CNG by other transportation modes.

The optimism, however, was tempered by the challenges encountered by the first adopters. These challenges were not a matter of technology. Rather, first adopters encountered a lack of regulatory structures and existing market relationships. It would require creating entirely new market relationships, and logistics, distribution and fueling infrastructures.

These challenges persist, particularly in the United States, where infrastructure development remains tied to specific vessel projects. Unlike in other countries, here there are no national policies or programs to foster and promote LNG development. There has been no credible signal from the gas supply industry that the fueling infrastructure will be built absent assured demand. With the exception of Tacoma and Jacksonville, which are tied to specific vessel projects, no major US port has stepped forward to actively promote and facilitate the construction of LNG terminals or to partner with gas suppliers to construct distribution facilities.

The major Jones Act ocean carriers have new build programs underway. In large part, the Jones Act blue water market potential for LNG has been realized but little progress is seen elsewhere. Ferry operators in New York and Washington State have signaled intent to incorporate LNG in their new vessel plans. The inland waterways fleet has seen no significant movement in that direction. In contrast, the 2012 EU Master Plan calls for the entire inland system to be LNG-capable. Considerable effort is also underway to develop harmonized standards and regulations across national boundaries. Conversion of the fleet has begun.

There is a phrase: “Money talks…” and if that is indeed the case, then the continuing investment in LNG vessels and infrastructure around the world is clear evidence that the migration continues elsewhere. The EU has not altered its formal commitment to support LNG-related projects despite economic difficulties and the drop in oil prices. New projects continue to be funded.

At least four LNG bunkering vessels will be operating in the United States and Europe by the end of 2016 and DNV GL estimates that 73 LNG fueled vessels are operating today, with another 80 on order. Upwards of 600 vessels could be operating worldwide by 2020. While this is only a small percentage of the global fleet, it represents significant financial investments by shipowners who clearly believe that LNG will be available to fuel these vessels at prices below the projected costs of MGO.

So there are silver linings on the LNG horizon, and I am convinced the real breakthrough for LNG will come when the major liner companies incorporate LNG as a standard element in their newbuild plans. A decision by any of the major ocean carriers to install either full LNG capability in their new generations of vessels, or, in a hedging strategy, install dual fuel engines with the intent to move to full LNG at a later date, would provide a strong impetus for the expansion of LNG globally. But this has not happened on a large scale for reasons that may be related to oil prices but also to concerns about the availability of LNG in their ports of call and uncertainty related to the 2018 IMO Annex VI consideration.

I believe that this challenge must be approached in a different way by moving forward with infrastructure development without a firm commitment from a shipping company. If LNG infrastructure proceeds first in one of the major load ports in the United States, it would be a powerful signal to the major liner companies that fuel will be available and would likely incentivize ship owners to accelerate the move to LNG.

If one accepts the “inevitability” of LNG, which I believe is a reasonable proposition, it would seem prudent for ports and gas suppliers to move forward to build the necessary infrastructure in the absence of a guaranteed offtake commitment. Clearly there are risks in this approach. Perhaps it is too much to ask ports and gas suppliers to assume this risk in the current investment climate, particularly for public companies. It is far easier to gain approval for a large investment if there is a guaranteed customer. But risk is intrinsic to life and business, and the key is how risks are managed and mitigated, particularly when the upside potential for the gas industry and ports is so great.

Something has to break the continuing “chicken and egg” impasse and energize the slow and somewhat sporadic development of marine LNG in the U.S. If there is broad consensus that LNG is a net positive, then it seems we need to approach this market opportunity in a way that does not fit traditional investment analyses.

One risk that must be addressed is the 2018 IMO global fuel sulfur decision. Global fuel sulfur standards are scheduled to be reduced to 0.5 percent in 2020 from the current 3.5 percent. As written, MARPOL Annex VI gives the IMO only two choices: either affirm the 2020 standard or delay it until 2025, and the basis for the decision is the worldwide availability of MGO and other “relevant” factors.

I strongly believe the IMO should affirm the existing 0.5 percent standard. If this is not possible, I would propose that the IMO implement an interim standard of 1.0 percent in 2020 with the more stringent standard delayed until a later date. Such an approach would essentially mirror the ECA implementation that resulted in LNG moving from a novelty conversation to a serious alternative compliance strategy in the United States and Europe.

This single act would create a powerful regulatory incentive to spur development of LNG infrastructure and vessel construction and provide the impetus to the international liner companies to adopt LNG in their next generation of vessels for delivery by 2020. Therefore, if the ports and gas supply industries have already begun the process of site selection, permitting and possibly construction by 2018, it would serve a dual purpose of undermining arguments that LNG is not a viable replacement fuel for lack of distribution infrastructure..

Yogi Berra was right when he said: “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” It is certainly true about LNG as a marine fuel. But as a longtime member of the maritime industry and proponent of LNG as a fuel I believe that this year LNG will continue its inexorable growth as the most effective way to meet the increasing environmental requirements our industry is facing. John Graykowski

A year in which U.S. shipyards announced contracts for over twenty new ocean going vessels (with options for several more) is noteworthy, especially given the recent difficult times experienced by the shipbuilding industry. What makes this fact even more significant is that LNG as a propulsion fuel is a central feature in each of these vessels, either as the intended fuel source upon delivery or at some point in the future.

So does this mean that the U.S. maritime industry in America has reached the LNG tipping point, where a tidal wave of even more marine projects will be announced in the coming year? My short answer would be a heavily qualified, but nonetheless definite: “maybe.”

A distinction has developed between ships that will be “LNG-ready” as opposed to those that are “LNG-capable,” the difference being those vessels that will use LNG upon delivery and those that can be converted to operate on LNG at some later date. While certain design modifications are incorporated into these ordered vessels, such as foundations for LNG fuel tanks and dual fuel main engines, they will operate on conventional diesel fuels when they are delivered.

The reasons for taking a half step to LNG rather than making the plunge are several, among them the additional cost of the entire fuel gas system, including the fuel tanks. However I suspect the greatest reason is uncertainty related to LNG supplies in the ports where these vessels will call. This is particularly the case with the product tankers that have been ordered that, unlike the LNG-powered container vessels do not operate in a classic point-to-point liner service. Their deployment is largely dictated by cargo availabilities throughout the United States and thus, until LNG is more widely available, the owners will likely hold back on a full commitment to LNG.

If one is looking for positive signs on the infrastructure front, they are there. The Port Fourchon terminal project on the Gulf of Mexico in Southern Louisiana is being developed by Harvey Gulf Marine to serve its fleet of LNG-powered offshore service vessels. It will be the first operational LNG bunkering facility in the United States and is expected to be operational next year. Clean Energy has announced its intent to construct facilities dedicated to the marine industry in Jacksonville. Tote, Inc. issued a request for proposal (RFP) to potential LNG suppliers to provide LNG for their vessel operations based in Tacoma, Washington and Jacksonville, Florida. Each announcement of new LNG-powered ships results in a deluge of phone calls from potential LNG suppliers seeking meetings and making proposals to vessel owners. So again, there is clear movement, growing interest and some tangible progress; but it is slow and these projects still face regulatory challenges and uncertainty that may result in delays and higher costs.

So, to offer a slightly more elaborate answer to the tipping point question, the U.S. is closer today than a year ago but one cannot conclude that the LNG revolution has begun. Of the limited number of Jones Act liner operators, three have already announced projects–Matson being the third–and another has announced intentions to convert existing vessels to LNG. The product tanker market has been effectively replaced over the last ten years so there are limits to the expansion there. I think the greatest opportunities for achieving critical mass in a marine fuel transformation can be found when and if several large harbor services or tug and barge companies either convert existing tugs to LNG or CNG or acquire new tonnage or the top-tier international liner companies announce new construction programs with LNG-fuelled vessels. Either – and certainly both – of these developments would be a critical next step to accelerate widespread LNG deployment.

Marine vessels represent the potential for a large concentrated market for LNG/CNG, and a port that has both ocean going and harbor vessels that need LNG for fuel would surely provide sufficient basis for investments in LNG marine terminal infrastructure for bunkering.

MTS Matters welcomes a well-known and regarded figure in D.C. transportation circles. John Graykowski, a Principal of Maritime Industry Consultants, served as Deputy Administrator of the Maritime Administration, and for two years as Acting Administrator, during the Clinton Administration. He is an attorney with experience in both private and public sectors. The subject of LNG-fueled transportation and how it might develop in the context of maritime policy and port communities has been a focus of his attention in recent years. This is the first of his contributions to this blog’s musings on port/maritime policy—present and future.

Over the past year, LNG as a marine fuel has gone from novel concept to an accepted alternative fuel here in the United States. Some LNG-capable vessels are operating and more will be under construction as appreciation is growing for the environmental, economic and energy security benefits offered by LNG. This transformation of a marine cargo commodity to emerging marine fuel in here and elsewhere might lead one to conclude that the broad deployment of LNG throughout the U.S. is underway and faces no challenges or constraints—but this is not the case. Lagging behind LNG-fueled vessel development here are the necessary market and regulatory structures that promote its widespread development.

The most common platitude in any discussion of LNG is the “chicken and egg” problem. Ship owners are loathe to make the large capital investment in LNG technologies absent certainty of supply. Meanwhile gas suppliers are averse to spending $150 million or more on bunkering infrastructure without firm, long term purchase contracts by ship owners. This reflects the lack of historic relationships between the gas supply industry and marine operators, who purchase bunker fuel in virtually every port on a spot basis and never needed long term contracts.

Compounding that is a lack of understanding and knowledge about each other’s industries. Marine operators are not familiar with gas production, transportation and market dynamics and gas suppliers have little direct knowledge about the marine industry practices, requirements, and the like. Emblematic of the divide between the two industries is the simple fact that marine operators purchase fuel on the basis of metric tons or barrels of oil, while the gas industry sells LNG on the basis of million BTUs. Potentially complicating this market disconnect, are increasingly stringent accounting rules that likely require a long term LNG contract to be carried as a contingent liability, thus impairing a balance sheet and constraining future capital expenditures for a marine company.

Beyond these market issues are significant regulatory challenges related to both operational procedures for bunkering vessels and, more importantly, the siting, permitting and operation of small and medium sized LNG marine terminals. It may come as a surprise to some, but there are no existing uniform federal regulatory structures that apply specifically to LNG marine fueling terminals.

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA) each have regulations that apply to LNG fueling terminals. These regulations, however, were developed with large scale export and import facilities in mind and thus are largely inapplicable to a small marine fuel terminal and the fueling of other than LNG carriers. In many cases these regulations may conflict, which creates a large area of potential regulatory confusion and will most likely result in ad hoc development of LNG regulations. Adding to this uncertainty is the probable requirement that these facilities will be subject to local permitting actions, which can provide opponents of LNG the opportunity to intervene and delay the project.

Where do ports fit in this puzzle of a marketplace?

Ports can and should be a catalyst to spur LNG development throughout the transportation industries since they are at the center of marine activities in the United States. They provide a ready-made, multi-modal market for LNG expansion beyond large oceangoing vessels, which includes ferries and harbor craft, trucking, and rail operations. Port agencies may have some degree of jurisdiction, and even control, over property where LNG operations will occur. Depending on the port, it may have a role in the siting, permitting, financing, development, or even operations of an LNG fueling terminal. As a responsible economic development agency, a port can also play a critical role in the public education and promotion of LNG and the mitigation of local opposition to such projects.

Public port agencies generally understand this is a constructive role they are in a position to play. We are seeing that in isolated initiatives, notably on the West Coast, as well on an international scale with Antwerp leading a working group that includes the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

The expansion of LNG and compressed natural gas (CNG) as a replacement fuel in port related operations, already showing benefits, is also a powerful tool that ports can use to achieve significant emissions reductions and thus reduce the cost and impact of increasingly more stringent environmental regulations or measures to meet local community demands. If LNG is used to fuel vessels’ auxiliary generators while in port there may be no need to install costly shore power systems for cold ironing since equivalent emissions results could be obtained with LNG.

Collectively, ports can be in the forefront of a “Green” initiative, leading to the expansion of LNG as a transportation fuel throughout the nation. Individually, ports that facilitate LNG bunkering operations could find them to be a competitive factor in attracting and retaining liner business as those companies bring LNG-capable vessels on line to meet IMO global standards by 2020.

Much has been written of the significant impact that domestically produced natural gas and its liquefied form will have on our on our nation. Ports are where all surface modes of commercial transportation intersect and where LNG distribution will naturally occur. They are in a position to be influential in the development of national policies that promote and accommodate the broad deployment of LNG as a transportation fuel.John E. Graykowski

Although he doesn’t mention it in his plan, I think T. Boone would give a thumbs-up to LNG fueled ships. Here are a few notes to add to an earlier post at this address.

With IMO limits on emissions facing the sector, and a tougher emission control area (ECA) regime adopted for the US and Canada starting 2012, natural gas powered ships should be in the mix.

Heavy fuel oil is not an option for future shipping within ECAs. Alternatives have to be introduced. A DNV study concludes that LNG is the obvious alternative to satisfy future ECA requirements, particularly for the short sea shipping. (DNV item and link to a presentation are here.)

MARINTEK – the Norwegian Marine Technology Research Institute – does research, development and technical consulting in the maritime sector. A 2009 presentation on the Norwegian experience with LNG fueled ships is interesting reading.

In China (of course)…

The company succeeded in fueling a tugboat weighing over 300 tons with LNG for Wuhan Ferry Company. The ship now runs on a fuel formula of 30% diesel and 70% natural gas, representing significant energy and cost savings. The Chairman of the board & CEO of the company, Qinan Ji, said. “This achievement is a big step in the history of China’s new energy industry and will contribute to environmental protection and reduce energy consumption. The marketing of LNG-powered ships will be implemented on a full scale in the forthcoming years.“ (Marine Link, August 8, 2010)

And from the pens of college students…

DNV CEO Henrik O. Madsen, said: “I was very impressed to see what the students presented here today. At times I have found it difficult to understand why the shipping industry has not switched to LNG – given the great commercial and environmental advantages. Today, with their presentation the students have provided ship owners with a blueprint, showing us all that it is 100% realistic to overcome the challenges with regard to LNG as fuel.” (Ship Management)

I would rather not add LNG powered ships to the long list of things on which America ranks twenty-something—or last—in the world. And as a matter of law we can’t buy Chinese vessels to work the American coastline. So, what say, gang, let’s build them here!

LNG is a natural for coastwise shipping, less so for trans-oceanic vessels. American start-ups including Coastal Connect, American Feeder Lines, and Intermodal Marine Lines see a role for natural gas in powering the modern vessels planned for marine highway service. They intend to provide prospective customers with cleaner and highly efficient transportation options.

A few months ago the natural gas industry focused their monthly Washington roundtable luncheon on LNG and the maritime sector. It was well-attended with a few of us maritime folks also in the room to hear John Hatley of Wartsila North America. Now there are obvious regulatory and distribution issues to be addressed. But sitting there, surrounded by a US industry group that knows little of shipping and a lot about natural gas, I realized that comparatively smaller US maritime shipping sector could have a major lobbying partner to advance innovative US-flag shipping if we only were willing to engage. What do you say, Mr. Pickens? What do you say, Washington? Pbea

Here in the U.S. some vessels may qualify as green or, in the instance of refitted tugs and ferries by the Port Authority of NY & NJ to mitigate against dredge emissions for a major deepening project, are greener than they once were. Then there’s the Foss Marine hybrid tug that was built with help from the Port of Long Beach. And there are the efforts in the Port of Los Angeles which along with POLB has a multifaceted vessel emissions reduction program including regulation, financial inducements, technology demonstrations, and infrastructure investments. What the U.S. government is doing to support technology improvements as part of an energy/environment policy is not readily apparent. Lest we be satisfied that all is well in America let’s peer across the pond to Norway and see….ships powered by LNG and fuel cells.

A liquefied natural gas (LNG)-powered ship has been nominated for the “Ship of the Year 2010” award by Skipsrevyen, a Norwegian maritime publication.

The KV Bergen, and its sister vessels KV Barentshav and KV Sortland, “are by far the world’s most energy efficient and environmentally friendly coast guard vessels,” said a statement from Norwegian shipbuilder Kleven Maritime.

According to the company, the vessels use LNG as a primary source of fuel. In addition, the vessels are equipped with large capacity marine diesel oil (MDO) engines to ensure high speed (maximum 20 knots) and towing performance when required.

“This, along with an optimized hull with very low resistance through the water again optimises fuel consumption during the vessels main operations – patrolling at low speed in rough waters,” the statement added.

“The reduction in NOX emission when using LNG is measured at around 90% compared to MDO, likewise the reduction in CO2 emission is measured at 25%.”

“Launched in 2003, the FellowSHIP project began with a feasibility study and completed basic design and development of fuel cell technologies for vessels by 2005. In 2006, the JIP began development of an auxiliary electric power pack (320kW) fueled by LNG, which was successfully installed in September aboard the OSV Viking Lady… The third and final phase of the project, intends to be testing, qualifying and demonstrating a main fuel cell electric system…

“The success of the project so far has raised expectations that fuel cell technology is close to a commercial application and has resulted in a regulatory review to establish frameworks for moving the technology forward.

“The FellowSHIP project was developed in response to rising concerns about the environmental impact of harmful emissions to air, including NOx, SOx, and CO2. ….

“With new tougher, emissions regulations now being considered by the IMO and EU, demand for commercial alternatives to traditional onboard power systems has risen. Fuel cell technology is not expected to manage the issue alone, but the technology represents a vital piece of the puzzle in certain shipping segments, such as short sea, local port traffic, commuter ferries and cruise ships and offshore, among others…”

The FellowSHIP project is a Joint Industry Project with Norweigian and German support.

I couldn’t pass up this tease question in an emailed promotion for a conference (in Marseille, if anyone has a spare ticket on the QM2 to offer a humble blogger).

Is Climate Change a challenge or an excellent incentive to facilitate the renaissance of the shipping and maritime industries?

Okay, I’ll bite. My answer is yes. It’s a challenge and it presents a generational opportunity that the maritime sector can’t afford to pass up.

Can climate change actions revitalize the shipping and maritime industries? (Another question posed by the conference organizers.) That not only is a timely question but it is the right question along with some others:

Will the American maritime sector will take proper advantage of the persistent national environmental and energy imperatives? Will the U.S. industry only tinker around the edges of design and technology? Or will it aggressively leverage global climate policy concerns to transform marine transport and services into a new market opportunity? Moreover, will the industry actually try to engage the interest of the US government in such a major transformation?

Marine transportation has some natural advantages. It tends to avoid little things like 10-mile backups on the turnpike. Its carrying capacity makes it the most efficient on a ton mile basis. That efficiency can also mean some comparative environmental benefits, along with some less pleasing emissions.

But as we have seen those pluses are not sufficient to move UPS to adopt coastal water routes or to convince government to integrate marine highways into surface transportation policy. Nor have various studies as to those benefits convinced shippers and other skeptics of Jones Act shipping.

After all, notwithstanding some attractive plans for new marine highway service, the industry has been slow to present concrete evidence that it has the will to leverage climate and energy policy drivers in order to bring about its own “renaissance.” I reach once again for a convenient contrast: the railroads.

The Class Ones could see the time was ripe. They have advertised the public benefits of rail freight , they have leveraged Federal support for the building of “green” locomotives, and they came up with a major bid to Congress, anyone who would listen, for a 25 percent investment tax credit for infrastructure improvements to their systems.

I know none of this is simple stuff for the maritime sector. And of course the economics are daunting to companies that operate on thin margins. But does the industry–especially the US flag stakeholders–have a vision as to what it can be? What the vessels can look like? What cleaner fuels can be burned to make the environmental benefits of marine transport undeniable? What visible improvements can be made to demonstrate that change is taking place to transform 20th century operations into 21st century wow!

As I have noted elsewhere in this blog, give the Sailor and the Secretary good reason to say “cutting edge” when talking about a vessel or a major advance in maritime goods movement.

We are handed an opportunity when Congress debates climate action measures and major reforms to energy policy. Pbea

The Federal Maritime Commission has formed a Maritime Environmental Advisory Committee. This isn’t fresh news–the FMC announced the action last November–but it’s still worth noting.

It is a smart move by Chairman Rick Lidinsky. He announced it, appropriately so, while on a visit to the San Pedro Bay ports. Says the FMC press release: “I wanted to recognize these ports’ leadership in demonstrating that the maritime industry can remain commercially competitive while acting in a manner consistent with the country’s commitment to energy independence and environmental standards.” While those two largest of US ports have led the way in greening seaport operations the Lidinsky comments were a particular reference to the ports’ more recent Clean Trucks Program. It was his way to demonstrate the agency’s new leadership.

The program–in conjunction with the efforts of an enlightened shipper community–has been very successful in reducing port drayage trucking diesel emissions by a praiseworthy 80 percent. Doing it well ahead of schedule. The program has inspired similar action in other parts of the country and, with the exception of one particular element, has the strong support of both public and private interests. (The exception is the controversial “employee driver” provision in the Los Angeles plan that is being challenged by the American Trucking Association in court.)

The formation of the FMC panel followed by several months a decision in the FMC to halt its action against the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Their joint action raised technical issues under the Shipping Act and that prompted an FMC complaint in court as well as the decision to start an FMC enforcement investigation. (The environmental objectives of the clean trucks program were not challenged.) The decision to withdraw the complaint took place before Lidinsky’s arrival at the FMC.

The bid in court proved unproductive. I’ve not the training to judge the merits of the complaint. But I do know that the new chairman–a sharp fellow–knew what he was doing when he asked his staff what was their understanding of the environmental issues that color and confront maritime related activity in the United States today.

On learning the answer Lidinsky took action. A Maritime Environmental Advisory Committee was formed. Strictly an internal panel, the press release notes that the staff committee’s purpose is “consistent” with Obama administration policy for the development of “green jobs”, etc. A reference to creating jobs is de rigueur for a government press release these days, likewise an ethos statement on seeking “a more sustainable approach to maritime issues.”

On a more basic level, however, the new advisory committee would help the commissioners understand what is going on in the maritime realm and tune the agency’s work–its deliberations and services–to what is an undeniably changed environment–regardless of the party in power–in which business and government now has to operate. And smartly so. Pbea

Call me silly, but I give benefit of the doubt to John McCain, Barack Obama, Al Gore (yes, him, too) and the slew of scientists who have convinced leaders around the globe that the time for action to address global warming is…yesterday. (With such heavy stakes I’m betting on the smart guys–people of science.)

Closer to home, I trust people like marine biologist Marisa Guarinello, who on Sunday told me of her recent stint in Antarctica. She witnessed the consequences of diminishing ice habitat and the effects on native species.

I also trust my gut, paunchy thing that it is. I never expected in my lifetime to see terra-evolution. From my early years in grammar school I learned, as we all did, about the Ice Age and other such periods that lasted over the course of tens of thousands of years. When I see ongoing evidence of change (the Melting Age?) occurring in my lifetime it’s a bit unnerving.

Want an example? How about the shrinking of the Arctic? So much so that studies and early planning are underway for Arctic shipping routes as ice is reduced to being less of an obstacle. I understand that there is opportunity in them thar high latitude shortcuts, but that opportunity has the look of silver lining an awfully dark cloud.

Our friends in USDOT might agree with that assertion. They are preparing the administration’s view as to the next surface transportation policy. Even as the policy is in development clear themes are being voiced by Secretary Ray LaHood and his team. Sustainability. Livability. Mobility.

The Secretary sees the MTS as fitting neatly in that framework of principles. He said marine transportation, specifically the development of the American Marine Highway (AMH), as transformational for the national transportation system.

Marine transportation is highly efficient. It moves large volumes of things using less fuel than the other surface modes. It has advantages from a GHG perspective. However it isn’t a slam dunk for “Green Mode of the Year.” But with the right investments it can do even better in contributing to our environmental and energy security. Fuel switching. Operational adjustments. New technologies.

Government and the private sector have roles to play here. Federal policy should aggressively foster both the use and greater advances in marine transportation. Investments in technology, new equipment and AMH services by the private sector, or its public sponsors, should be rewarded. Research should be supported. Transportation policies in this CCE should be unified through the integration of modal policies and some programs.

“My jolly body shall a story tell
And I will clink for you so merry a bell
That it shall waken all this company;
But it shall not be of philosophy,
Nor yet of physics, nor quaint terms of law;
There is but little latin in my maw.” (from The Sailor’s Prologue by Chaucer)

But in the absence of an organized effort to tell how the industry and its skilled labor force is trending into a new age –and have virtues of particular relevance today–the outward appearance amounts to a familiar, 20th-century one.

Not so with the railroad industry. The once Iron Horse now has the look of a low emission, high performance thoroughbred. The appearance is a calculated one that to some degree is also deserved. When new equipment is brought on line with green power plants there is no question about it.

“I have to say, the folks there have really turned out something cutting-edge. The NS 999 cranks out 1500 horsepower relying solely on rechargeable batteries. And, it releases no diesel exhaust emissions. None.”

Those aren’t words from some Norfolk Southern executive. They’re from the USDOT Secretary’s blog. The Class Ones have a story to tell and they’ve been telling it. Good for them if the Transportation Secretary wants to join in. (And why not? The President likes to tout the new Detroit from the podium.)

What’s the maritime story? One that will turn heads in Congress…that will prompt a sustainability-conscious president to urge more use of and investment in marine highways? One that says our waterways are the nation’s past and future?

A maritime industry lobbying effort is in the works. A collective “fly-in” (Washington lobbying lingo) by labor, business and ports is being organized for spring 2010. What will be the message? That the industry produces many great paying jobs? That the maritime sector is important to the economy and our national security? All factually correct and important to say. But it’s an old–in some ways ho-hum–story.

It isn’t message enough when the government is tackling climate, energy, congestion and freight transportation issues, and will be setting policies and programs to last the next 5 years and more. And it isn’t relevant enough when businesses, including customers of freight services, are developing strategies to bypass congestion, reduce fuel costs and carbon footprints, and earn EPA SmartWay credentials.

We are approaching fast the convergence of government policy and business imperatives.

It is no wonder that the railroads are projecting themselves–successfully so–as worthy of a hearty handshake from Al Gore. Will the maritime sector also be ready and relevant? Will the policy makers know why it makes sense to use marine transportation in this new age? There’s only one way they will know.

Persons famliar with Secretary LaHood’s meeting with public and port officials in Oakland tell me that folks might be surprised to know which California official was most enthusiastic about the prospects for Bay Area marine highway service. Among those at the meeting were two California cabinet members (Food & Agriculture and Business, Transportation & Housing) and the director of Caltrans.

The Eco Transport project has been in development for a few years. The business plan is to reduce the need for truck moves into Oakland by deploying barges to move containers between Oakland and the Ports of Stockton, initially, and Sacramento. The company notes that such an operation also will make unnecessary a great many empty container moves and the associated costs of fuel and exhaust. Export containers could be loaded heavier in Stockton because they would not have to meet road weight restrictions. And carbon counters are sure to like the shrinking of the significant carbon footprint of trucks carrying imports into the central region, and California exports to Northern California’s principal international gateway. Indeed the company has done its due diligence to substantiate the environmental benefits of their new marine highway service. And the result has been the endorsement of regional and State air quality agencies.

So which official at the meeting revealed great eagerness and anticipation about the green barge service? It was Food and Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura. He and the growers/shippers of the Central Valley are enthusiastic about the prospects for barges carrying goods to Oakland and then on to a ship for the export market. And when a shipper is looking forward to taking its goods to the water that’s a very encouraging sign.